| |||||||||||||
Unioning file systems: Architecture, features, and design choicesUnioning file systems: Architecture, features, and design choicesPosted Jan 15, 2013 22:31 UTC (Tue) by anselm (subscriber, #2796)In reply to: Unioning file systems: Architecture, features, and design choices by hummassa Parent article: Unioning file systems: Architecture, features, and design choices
In that case, the semantics you Need from -- for instance -- "rm /etc/resolv.conf" is exactly "substitute /etc/resolv.conf for the default file". That's not the greatest example – not having an /etc/resolv.conf file at all also means something, and with the »path in symlink« approach you can't make a file that is present in a lower layer appear as if it wasn't there after all, which is something that union filesystems can usually handle.
(Log in to post comments)
Unioning file systems: Architecture, features, and design choices Posted Jan 16, 2013 0:00 UTC (Wed) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
You can have "negative filesystem skeletons" like you have in some unionfs implementations. That way, you do "/x -> /a:-/b:/c:-/d" and if you remove a file in /x, the implementation will touch the same name (modulo an extension or prefix) under /b, that will mark said file as inexistent even if it exists in /c...
|
|||||||||||||